• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

President Tells F.C.C. to Ensure Open Internet

Huff Po is putting it out as BO wants the Strongest Possible rules.....Wheeler says everything is on the table.

On Monday, President Barack Obama came out in favor of the "strongest possible rules to protect net neutrality," endorsing a popular proposal that would empower the Federal Communications Commission to require Internet service providers to treat all web traffic equally and not charge content providers for better access.

"We cannot allow Internet service providers to restrict the best access or to pick winners and losers in the online marketplace for services and ideas," Obama said in a statement.

Last week, The Wall Street Journal reported that the FCC was considering a "hybrid" compromise that would empower ISPs to make deals with companies to allow for faster content delivery, while still allowing for oversight.....snip~

Obama Urges FCC To Set 'Strongest Possible Rules' To Protect Net Neutrality
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/obama...time-warner-cable-comcast-deal-154738302.html

So, you against net neutrality or in favor of it?
 
Read the post above yours. Restricting content on the internet is no different than banning books at federal libraries. Say the government decided to censor books like Mein Kempf or the Communist Manifesto on the grounds that access to it could corrupt the minds of the young. They'd basically have to argue that you don't have a right to that information. That's a pretty big violation of freedom of speech. Access to information is covered under the 1st in the same way dissemination of said information.

I'm not going to trust the federal government to give a tinker's dam about me or my rights. Maybe that's just me, but it's how I feel. If they could be trusted to do so, there would have not been any of the court cases people could quote to support the reason why they can't do it and to trust them. It's a circular argument that is based on the fallacy that the government is restrained by either the law or the courts.
 
I know what Net Neutrality is, and support it completely, including legislation to make it law. I do not support the FCC regulating the internet (no gay sites, no unlimited access to sites that may be "questionable" in their content, etc.). The FCC regulates what we can and cannot see or hear on the TV and radio - I do not want them having that power over the internet. Can you imagine Ted Cruz being in charge of the FCC internet oversight committee?

The FCC won't have regulation over the internet, they are trying to regulate the people that want to regulate the internet.

Regulating the internet can come with some pretty damning consequences for those in power, just look at the arab spring, where regulation of the internet was a major driving force in numerous circumstances. The only reason it works in places such as China and Bahrain is because it's been around since near the www's introduction into those countries.
 
The FCC won't have regulation over the internet, they are trying to regulate the people that want to regulate the internet.

Regulating the internet can come with some pretty damning consequences for those in power, just look at the arab spring, where regulation of the internet was a major driving force in numerous circumstances. The only reason it works in places such as China and Bahrain is because it's been around since near the www's introduction into those countries.

You're conflating Net Neutrality and federal regulation by the FCC. I do not and will not believe that once the FCC gets such powers that it will end at the ISP.
 
So, you against net neutrality or in favor of it?

I am in favor of it.....but I would be against the FCC regulating the Internet. For the same reasons Beaudreaux has brought out.

Do you think those other less restrictive rules that BO doesn't care about should be brought out into the open?
 
I'm not going to trust the federal government to give a tinker's dam about me or my rights. Maybe that's just me, but it's how I feel. If they could be trusted to do so, there would have not been any of the court cases people could quote to support the reason why they can't do it and to trust them. It's a
circular argument that is based on the fallacy that the government is restrained by either the law or the courts.

So your argument that you don't want the government to ensure net neutrality is because... they can overstep their boundaries? That's a pretty soft argument, my friend.
 
You're conflating Net Neutrality and federal regulation by the FCC. I do not and will not believe that once the FCC gets such powers that it will end at the ISP.

Am I conflating the two or are you???

Net neutrality does not give the FCC any authorization to regulate the internet in any way. Net neutrality is synonymous with keeping all regulation, private or public, away from the internet. If there is legislation that needs to be made to enforce this then that's necessary due to the nature of business, it still doesn't give the FCC the ability to actually regulate the internet itself.
 
So your argument that you don't want the government to ensure net neutrality is because... they can overstep their boundaries? That's a pretty soft argument, my friend.

The US DOJ can enforce legislation, which is the way it should be done. The FCC does not need to be allowed to create rules and regulations by treating the internet as a utility under laws that already exist, but have absolutely nothing to do with the uniqueness of the internet. The FCC should not be given authority that it does not have. The Congress needs to pass legislation and let the DOJ enforce it and prosecute any ISP that breaks the law.

And, it isn't an argument, but rather my belief. A closely held belief based on my ~30 years dealing with the federal government in one form or another.
 
Am I conflating the two or are you???

Net neutrality does not give the FCC any authorization to regulate the internet in any way. Net neutrality is synonymous with keeping all regulation, private or public, away from the internet. If there is legislation that needs to be made to enforce this then that's necessary due to the nature of business, it still doesn't give the FCC the ability to actually regulate the internet itself.

What is being proposed is not lawful in my opinion, and any Net Neutrality regulations should be promulgated from legislation made into law, not given to a relatively unaccountable federal commission that has its own internal courts that are not appealable to any other federal court.

There's more to this than just saying "Wow, that makes sense. Yeah, Mr. President. Do that."
 
The US DOJ can enforce legislation, which is the way it should be done. The FCC does not need to be allowed to create rules and regulations by treating the internet as a utility under laws that already exist, but have absolutely nothing to do with the uniqueness of the internet. The FCC should not be given authority that it does not have. The Congress needs to pass legislation and let the DOJ enforce it and prosecute any ISP that breaks the law.

And, it isn't an argument, but rather my belief. A closely held belief based on my ~30 years dealing with the federal government in one form or another.

And you trust the DOJ to do this, yes?
 
The US DOJ can enforce legislation, which is the way it should be done. The FCC does not need to be allowed to create rules and regulations by treating the internet as a utility under laws that already exist, but have absolutely nothing to do with the uniqueness of the internet. The FCC should not be given authority that it does not have. The Congress needs to pass legislation and let the DOJ enforce it and prosecute any ISP that breaks the law.

And, it isn't an argument, but rather my belief. A closely held belief based on my ~30 years dealing with the federal government in one form or another.


Heya Beaudreaux. :2wave: To be honest the Fed and the Courts would have to be concerned about those less restrictive rules. Even if Obama doesn't care about them. Correct?
 
And you trust the DOJ to do this, yes?

The DOJ answers to the real courts if they go outside the lines. The FCC has its own internal court system that answers to no one. And no, I don't trust any of them to do anything correctly, but passing legislation and having recourse through the real court system is preferable to the FCC getting powers endowed upon it without legislative intent or restriction.

Look, I'm going to bed. Have good night my friend.
 
What is being proposed is not lawful in my opinion, and any Net Neutrality regulations should be promulgated from legislation made into law, not given to a relatively unaccountable federal commission that has its own internal courts that are not appealable to any other federal court.

There's more to this than just saying "Wow, that makes sense. Yeah, Mr. President. Do that."

Ok so your position is that the legislation should be enacted differently to how it is currently planned. To be fair I'm pretty uninformed on how the FCC operates so I can concede on that. Out of interest, is any of your federal experience with the FCC in particular?
 
The internet is neutral. Just a bunch of hyperbole from cheapskates who do not want to pay their way who sucker the gullible into thinking this is about something it is not. Google made no big deal about this and pays the fees to help ISP's continue to meet the needs of the users. Other companies just want welfare. "Net Neutrality"="Corporate Obamaphones"

You are aware that no one hops onto the internet for free? Everyone pays for a certain download and upload speed and their internet speeds will never exceed what they pay for.That idea that a company is sucking up bandwidth is absurd. ISPs are not losing money just because their costumers are using the upload and download speed those customers paid for.
 
I should be able to pay a flat fee for a connection to the internet, based on how much bandwidth I want.

Every single entity should have the same option, with the obvious price increases for higher capacity.


There is no way in hell it is reasonable to expect me to pay more for certain types of content.
Nor is it reasonable to allow ISP's to provide artificially preferential performance for companies if they pay more, unless you're talking a company paying for higher bandwidth.


In short, internet service prices should be based on bandwidth ONLY. The type and source of the content should NEVER be a factor.
 
I'm glad Obama is tackling this issue three years after he should have!!! Thanks Obama! You've proven to be an incredibly weak/spineless president when it comes to domestic issues...

Maybe he's only speaking up now because the cable providers didn't donate enough to his campaign?
 
So while you are casting stones at others calling them idiots why don't you look in the mirror and stop being one.
Who

Fact of the matter is there are FEW very big users of bandwidth. They profit at the expense of others providing it. You know that but for some political hack reason choose to ignore it - which makes you ignorant.

It's almost like you turn every issue into a right/left thing even though this really concerns us all in the way that having safe drinking water concerns us all. It's almost like half the time you have no clue what you're talking about and you're just making it up as you go but only looking right or left on an issue. Net neutrality has nothing to do with Netflix, Hulu and YouTube. It has to do with advertisers treating all internet content the same way and not gouging their customer based on subjective notions of what they should pay for the actual content. So say for example whomever your provider is decides that they'll start charging for a "social package". Internet forums, Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, instantly get bundled up in a neat little package and added to your internet bill for an extra $5 bucks. Why? No reason. Oh you don't use those websites? Fine. Say you use you use internet to purchase movies/music on iTunes. That needs to be downloaded. Great! That now becomes part of another bundle called "Entertainment". Say you play video games and use a service like Steam. That gets bundled up too and you get to pay more for using the same amount of data you were before.

If nothing being said here makes you be a supporter of net neutrality, may I refer you to this idiot:

View attachment 67175732

I'm sure you'll enjoy his talking points.
 
So while you are casting stones at others calling them idiots why don't you look in the mirror and stop being one.
Who

Fact of the matter is there are FEW very big users of bandwidth. They profit at the expense of others providing it. You know that but for some political hack reason choose to ignore it - which makes you ignorant.

It's like you have no idea what you're discussing. Net neutrality has nothing to do with stopping a few users of bandwidth. It has to do with companies being able to establish how you access data, what data you access and how much it costs.
 
Back
Top Bottom